Talk:40 Years of Star Trek: The Collection
Auction image :Moved from File talk:Cosmos A to Z.jpg. While the auction image is clearer, I believe we've already decided that images from the actual episodes and films are preferred. --From Andoria with Love 05:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Actually, strike that... in this case, I think the auction image will be fine. It needs the proper citation and copyright tag, though. --From Andoria with Love 05:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :...you know i prefer screencaps to promotional photos, etc, but with this kind of minutia i figured it would be appropriate. there are actually a few items from the christies auctions that might be useful here, but i'm not sure how to cite it. Deevolution 05:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::I'm sure you have a good explanation why this should not be considered a copyright violation? The terms on their webpage seems very clear in that regard. I'm reverting for the moment, feel free to discuss, though. -- Cid Highwind 06:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :(i'm sure there's a less rude way to phrase that.) the terms on the page cite CBS Studios but i see no terms to speak of. admittedly, it's questionable, but no more so than many other images found here. you'll find that all star trek products will be credited to CBS, not Paramount anymore anyway. Deevolution 06:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::It wasn't my intention to sound rude, sorry if that was the case. Anyway, I'm talking about christies.com Website Terms&Conditions, Section 1, especially paragraphs 2 and 3. -- Cid Highwind 06:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :::no worries. i didn't see the link. it's a shame, it would have been nice. there is a portion here that reads: If you would like information about obtaining the Company's permission to use the Material on your web site, info@christies.com. waste of time to follow up on that? and do these terms stand once the auction and presumably the website have closeD? Deevolution 07:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I don't think it would be a waste of time, if you really want the image. If they give us permission to use it, then there shouldn't be a problem anymore. But I highly doubt the terms will end even after the auction comes to an end; the copyright will still belong to Christie's. --From Andoria with Love 12:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :::::This is printed on the last page of the catalogues: ::::::7. Copyright: The copyright in all images, illustrations and written material produced by or for Christie's relating to a lot including the contents of this catalogue, is and shall remain at all times the property of Christie's and shall not be used by the buyer, nor by anyone else, without the prior written consent. Christie's and the seller make no representation or warranty that the buyer of a property will acquire any copyright or other reproduction rights in it. --Jörg 12:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::I don't know if it would really be a good idea to basically ask Paramount/CBS (through Christie's as a proxy) for permission to use their copyrighted work... -- Cid Highwind 13:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :::We could ask whoever ends up buying it :) .. fair use for review purposes, just like any other bought and sold collectible, i'm sure. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::Yes, that would be a solution. So, please, whoever reads this - go and buy all that stuff! :) -- Cid Highwind 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :I think its worth it to ask permission. I would guess that they would most likely say yes, so long as we credit them for it, and place a link to their site. -- Jaz talk 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC) ::Why is this discussion still here? I thought it was moved to Talk:40 Years of Star Trek: The Collection?? Please, let's continue the discussion on one page, not both - I suggest to continue this one on the forum page. -- Cid Highwind 08:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Talk:40 Years of Star Trek: The Collection? Would it be admissable to use Christe's auction pictures of Trek items on MA? -- StAkAr Karnak 16:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :See this discussion. They're talking about it there right now. -- Sulfur 16:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Since this is likely to effect more than one image, I am copying the discussion here to centralize it --OuroborosCobra talk 17:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ---- While the auction image is clearer, I believe we've already decided that images from the actual episodes and films are preferred. --From Andoria with Love 05:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Actually, strike that... in this case, I think the auction image will be fine. It needs the proper citation and copyright tag, though. --From Andoria with Love 05:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :...you know i prefer screencaps to promotional photos, etc, but with this kind of minutia i figured it would be appropriate. there are actually a few items from the christies auctions that might be useful here, but i'm not sure how to cite it. Deevolution 05:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::I'm sure you have a good explanation why this should not be considered a copyright violation? The terms on their webpage seems very clear in that regard. I'm reverting for the moment, feel free to discuss, though. -- Cid Highwind 06:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :(i'm sure there's a less rude way to phrase that.) the terms on the page cite CBS Studios but i see no terms to speak of. admittedly, it's questionable, but no more so than many other images found here. you'll find that all star trek products will be credited to CBS, not Paramount anymore anyway. Deevolution 06:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::It wasn't my intention to sound rude, sorry if that was the case. Anyway, I'm talking about christies.com Website Terms&Conditions, Section 1, especially paragraphs 2 and 3. -- Cid Highwind 06:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :no worries. i didn't see the link. it's a shame, it would have been nice. there is a portion here that reads: If you would like information about obtaining the Company's permission to use the Material on your web site, info@christies.com. waste of time to follow up on that? and do these terms stand once the auction and presumably the website have closeD? Deevolution 07:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC) I don't think it would be a waste of time, if you really want the image. If they give us permission to use it, then there shouldn't be a problem anymore. But I highly doubt the terms will end even after the auction comes to an end; the copyright will still belong to Christie's. --From Andoria with Love 12:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :::This is printed on the last page of the catalogues: ::::7. Copyright: The copyright in all images, illustrations and written material produced by or for Christie's relating to a lot including the contents of this catalogue, is and shall remain at all times the property of Christie's and shall not be used by the buyer, nor by anyone else, without the prior written consent. Christie's and the seller make no representation or warranty that the buyer of a property will acquire any copyright or other reproduction rights in it. --Jörg 12:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::I don't know if it would really be a good idea to basically ask Paramount/CBS (through Christie's as a proxy) for permission to use their copyrighted work... -- Cid Highwind 13:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::::We could ask whoever ends up buying it :) .. fair use for review purposes, just like any other bought and sold collectible, i'm sure. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::Yes, that would be a solution. So, please, whoever reads this - go and buy all that stuff! :) -- Cid Highwind 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :::::What if the pictures were altered in some way? Would they constitute separate works? I'd be sorry to let go of their picture of Surak's katric ark. -- StAkAr Karnak 21:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::Actually, altering them might be even worse. It certainly would not make them "fair use". --OuroborosCobra talk 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :::::Excerpting a detail should be no different than quoting someone. There is no plagarism, as it were, since the entire work is not being reproduced. IMHO, this and this are reasonable "quotes". -- StAkAr Karnak 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC) :::::::(I think I have the indentation correct now... I hope). It seems to me that if we could show some of the detail similar to what StAkAr has shown with the two images he notes there do highlight some of the detail on set design that just simply cannot (and will not) be seen, even with the quality that DVD presents us. I don't know if the copyright laws allow for that at all, and I'm afraid that they likely don't, but if we can find some way of being able to use things like that to show that, it would be mah-velous. -- Sulfur 02:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC) ::From the "Terms" I already referred to above: "You may not sell, '''prepare derivative works based on' or modify the Material''". So, altering and/or showing just part of an image does not help in any way. Additionally, I think Fair use doesn't apply here because we wouldn't use the image to "critically review" the image itself (in which case we might have a point), but to review something unrelated (a episode of a tv series in which something was used that is also shown in this image). So, please, don't upload any more of that for the moment... -- Cid Highwind 09:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC) :::::The examples above are not derivative works, but are specified to be details of larger originals. Discussing a particular aspect of an image is a form of "review". Really, I don't see how it is any different from this, for example. "The Devil in the Dark" is a copyrighted work. We don't offer free downloads of the episode, but displaying a detail such as this one is surely fair use. Visual quotes. (BTW, FWIW, I don't plan on uploading any other Christie's image details, since Surak's katric ark was the only one that I felt significant. Still, the issue require resolution here...) -- StAkAr Karnak I think the best way (and perhaps the only way) to resolve the issue is to contact Christie's to see if we can get permission. If we can, the point is moot. -- Renegade54 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC) :::::So every time we want to add a new image to the site, we need to contact Paramount for permission? What's the difference? --~ StAkAr Karnak ::::The difference is our images come from screencaps, not a printed publication. Our practice on MA has been to delete images if they are from printed publications, as can be seen in the fishing I did through the Images for Deletion page found here. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC) ::::In addition, the DVD screencaps are being used for review purposes of the material on the DVD or on-screen. The Christie's images are not being used for review purposes of the Christie's catalogue, but again for the purposes of the material seen on-screen. That means they are no longer being used for review purposes of the product they are taken from. We get away with novel covers and such because they are used to review the novel. This is not how the Christie's images are currently being used. If we want to continue using them in a way that differs from how we use the novel covers and the screencaps, we need to get permission. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC) To further expand on what Cobra is saying, Christie's is both selling the catalogue and selling the items depicted in the catalogue. If we were reviewing either the catalogue or the auction, it would be fair use to use a few pictures from the catalogue to illustrate our article. Since we are doing neither, it's not fair use. -- Renegade54 17:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC) :::::I grok. Bummer. -- StAkAr Karnak 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC) I think its worth it to ask permission. I would guess that they would most likely say yes, so long as we credit them for it, and place a link to their site. -- Jaz talk 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Forum:Christie's Auction page? Do we have a page here about the Christie's Auction? Should we? I think it will be cool as a way to attract new editors... I have some press interest in memory alpha relating to the christie's auction, and it would be cool to be able to show them a page on this site which evaluates the auction items, describes the auction, the history of stuff in it, or whatever seems fun and interesting. :) ----Jimbo Wales 08:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC) :Hi Jim. There isn't a page about the auction yet, but I think you are right, it might be a good idea to have one. A small problem we already stumbled upon, however, is the eventual use of images from that auction (which I think is not allowed). Maybe you can add your sum of choice to this discussion, since I'm sure you know more about the do''s and ''don't''s than any of us? Thanks, Cid Highwind 09:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC) :I started an article about the auction here: 40 Years of Star Trek: The Collection. We probably shouldn't go all crazy and describe ''all lots on that page, but if there's something interesting to say about an individual item, why not. As an example, I chose a lot that seems unspectacular at first, but offers some insight we never had before... -- Cid Highwind 10:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Results source I have posted the source data for the results section at User:Bp/Auction data source. The estimates and titles were extracted from the Christie's online catalogue. The sale prices were extracted from the auction results page on the christies web site. The gavel prices were calculated by reversing the buyer's premium calculation from the catalogue like so: if ($sp$l > 240000) { $gp$l = 200000+($sp$l - 240000)/1.12; } else { $gp$l = $sp$l/1.2; } $sp$l = sale price of lot $l, $gp$l = gavel price of lot $l. --Bp 23:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC) :Actually I obtained the gavel prices (or hammer prices if you prefer) by watching the live streaming video feed of the auction on The History Channel's website, but if you back-calculate them you get the same figures. :) --Shawn81 06:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC) ''Rubicon'' model? There is a picture of the model of the [[USS Rubicon|USS Rubicon]] made for here. Why is it not mentioned in the article? -- Tough Little Ship 15:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Clarify? Why is there a difference between "highest bid" and "price"? 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC) :I believe that "price" reflects the total amount the buyer paid for the item, including the "Buyer's Premium," the amount above the highest bid price that the buyer also pays. (See this page.) --TommyRaiko 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Removed link I removed this link: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijAIvmlBQYCXfdQLsuOBlWwhcQ_gD8TQOV980 According to the site: "The article you've requested is no longer available." – Alan 22:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Find buyers Is it possible in any way to find information about who bought one of the items? I'd really like to get in contact with someone who bought a specific model. Why did all of the items suddenly vanish? Who bought them? What happened to them? Where are they now? 40 Years of Trekdom washed down the toilet. All of it could have been on display in a big public museum of some sort. But now everything is scattered all around the world in the hands of a few nerds. :Many of the items were bought by the Seattle Sci-Fi Museum. --Bp 09:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC) ::I'm sure the people you want to contact will love the positive sentiments and name calling you use. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks, bp, hopefully they bought what I'm looking for. And OuroborosCobra, get over yourself. It's just the truth. Look at Star Wars, they are carefully keeping their models and sharing them with us nerds in exhibitions, so you get a great look at the work they've done. What does Paramount do? Sell all their stuff to get a quick buck, and the models are now GONE. :::It's also "just the truth" that these people probably would not be thrilled with you calling them names. Cobra doesn't need to "get over himself", he was just making a statement. :::Like it or not, Star Trek is a business, and the job of a business is to make money. That's why they sold the stuff.--31dot 15:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC) ::Before telling me to "get over myself," maybe you should try doing some fact checking of your own. Star Wars has been auctioning stuff off too. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Wow, one Lightsaber. I'm impressed. They're not selling their Star Destroyer and Millenium Falcon models, are they? ::::OK, the party is over... the original question has been answered (as far as possible). No further need for replies from any side, as long as they're just personal opinion. -- Cid Highwind 14:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Broken links All but the Wikipedia link for Christie's, in the external links section, are dead links. I won't remove them as I'm a)Unregistered and b)it'll likely get reverted because I'm unregistered. No, I don't want to register. Just thought you all should know. ;) :I just tried 'em all, and they all worked just fine for me... -- sulfur 16:19, April 19, 2010 (UTC) re-categorization Sincere apologies to all those concerned for not having brought up the issue in he proper venue, but I was wondering if this article should not be sub-categorized under Category:Star Trek auctions, as well (meaning under both categories), as, while it was true that it was partly an exhibition tour, that served only as promotion for the main event, the 2006 Christies auction, under the same name...Sennim 20:51, November 12, 2011 (UTC)